For society to function we need a government, and all people benefit from society functioning and therefore government and so we agree to give certain people power to make decisions and do things no private individual would ever be allowed to do. In exchange the government is responsible to the people, through elections, referendums, protests, general dissatisfaction, and generally tries to take actions which are fair and in the best interest of society and the people.
Of course sometimes the government isn't responsible enough to the people, and sometimes the government doesn't quite take actions that are fair and in the best interest of society; no system is perfect, but that's the principle upon which our government and all modern democratic governments are based. We can discuss all day whether or not it's currently working but that's not what you asked about.
You can vote out a bad government official who wields power unfairly. If it's a bad CEO, well, you can sit back and pray to Ayn Rand that our lord and savior "the market" punishes him for his choices one day though you know chances are he'll be rewarded.
A person who believed that stuff might say people implicitly consent to the status quo when they don't fight against it. You might dislike the two-party system, but could you get 5% of the population to dash off a quick e-mail to their representative? Could you get 10% of the population to choose who to vote for with that as the deciding issue? Could you get 20% of the population to donate $2,000 to a PAC campaigning on the issue? Could you get 40% of the population to buy a rifle and fight in a revolutionary war? If you can't do any of these things, doesn't that mean people are happy with things as they are?
Personally I've always been a bit sceptical about that argument, due to the obvious status quo bias.
Your criminality point is not meaningful; the initial point was about the societal effects of actions. Governments and government officials also go against their own laws all the time.